Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked secrets about widespread surveillance, has spoken to the press for the first time since getting asylum in Russia. New York Times reporter James Risen talked to the whistleblower through "encrypted online communications" over the course of the last week.

Snowden maintained that his leaks helped, rather than hurt, US security. “The secret continuance of these programs represents a far greater danger than their disclosure,” he told the paper.

Snowden went on to insist that the documents were leaked only to journalists, and there was a "zero percent chance" any had fallen into the hands of the Russian or Chinese governments.

Currently, Snowden said the documents are in the hands of the journalists he has worked with, and he doesn't even have a copy of any of them. Snowden wanted to be "divorced from the decision-making of publication," he said. "Technical solutions were in place to make sure the work of the journalists couldn't be interfered with."

He also disputed a negative note in his CIA personnel file that was reported last week in the NYT. Snowden said that negative notation was the result of a "petty e-mail spat" with a senior manager.

The retaliation for this petty spat was one of the things that convinced Snowden to become a leaker and persuaded him that seeking change from the inside would prove futile. Any efforts at reporting wrongdoing “would have been buried forever,” he told the NYT, and Snowden would “have been discredited and ruined.” He added “the system does not work” since “you have to report wrongdoing to those most responsible for it.”

The decision to take action built up gradually, he said. Snowden finally chose to leak after seeing an inspector general's report on the warrantless wiretapping program, he told the Times. The report was from 2009, but Snowden wouldn't say when he read it.

"[P]rograms that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack... legitimacy, and that’s a problem," he said. "It also represents a dangerous normalization of ‘governing in the dark,’ where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.”

The Kremlin propagandists are surely hoping everyone will stay focused literally on the laptops and not think about any other way that people can commit espionage, you know, by verbal descriptions about their job duties and office politics and all kinds of details in conversations that they may not even admit are interrogations or are related to the FSB.

Please do tell me, geeks, that when a geek claims he gave "all the files" away that he didn't actually keep a set for himself stashed away, someplace where he knew how to reach it, even if it weren't physically on his person. Remember, all of these hackers loved Julian Assange's invention called "rubberhose", the code that enabled you to have plausible deniability about your encryption.

The laptops might still have the encrypter for the comms on it, or may be merely decoys. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that they once existed, they had the EFF and Tor stickers on them, likely given to Snowden when Greenwald and Poitras came to visit him in his hotel room in Hong Kong -- he proudly displayed them on a laptop in a picture taken by Poitras published in the Guardian at the time.

It's actually a good move for his own safety to make sure that he couldn't access the files. You are correct that he may have significant verbal knowledge remaining, but the Russian moles still in the NSA are going to be much better sources for that info.

With legislation pending to roll back or overhaul the programs Snowden has revealed, the head of the NSA and his lackey stepping down, James Clapper caught dead-to-rights lying to congress, Obama all but admitting in so many words that Snowden's leaks forced his hand and the realization that both FISA and congressional oversight failed, when is the government that is supposed to represent the people going to call this guy by his real title which is *whistleblower* and drop the trumped up espionage charge?

No matter what 'oaths' you might take, you always have a greater obligation to justice. Anyone in Snowdon's position had the responsibility to release the information, and all the others are cowards for not doing it. Their cowardice is understandable and justifiable, but cowardice it is.

Edward is a coward. He took an oath and then betrayed that oath. To make matters worse, he admits he took positions specifically to violate the trust given to him. He was looking to violate his oath.

oath or not oath, as already mentioned, it's about the "shadow governments", the cryptic acronymed agencies within a government who believe they stand above the scrutiny of the public, who pays their salaries with their taxes. Those agencies scream "for the common good/against terrorism" and what-not.

Bottomline is - there is no safety in anything. There's ALWAYS a risk in just living! I see it from this angle, if a large percentage of this worlds population is angry enough to do something immoral/harmful, then they believe because they've been wronged. I think we've come to an age where "those in power" are scared to loose their "power" over their constituents. just 20 years ago, it was easy to manipulate peoples perspectives and opinions because there were only limited ways to propagate information. Today in the age of cellphone journalism and the internet's fast and vast capabilities to spread news destroyed this "information control".I feel that there's a hardening of fronts happening, between people who "have power" and those who do not. Those with "no power"are having louder and louder cry outs and those "with power" manipulating and exploiting the law-making and law-executing branches/concepts of a government. I can see that things are escalation to very violent points as it is and has happened already in certain region on our world.I'll stop soapboxing now but I find the nations provicialistic quarreling disgusting - remember, we all sit in the same boat called "Earth" - don't rock it, or we'll go all under. There's no Elysium L5 colony for those "with power", and there's no Federation Of Planets where one can emigrate to.

For me, Snowden is my personal hero right beside George Carlin - unfortunately only the 'educated' and 'technically inclined' (of those who have "no power") realize the scope of his exposures.

Was that, by any chance, the same oath that Alexander and Clapper took? They're causing a lot more harm to the Constitution and the trust of the American public than any low-level contractor.

In addition to that, my understanding is that their oath is to uphold/protect the Constitution, not their human superiors or the individuals currently in charge. On that level, Snowden didn't break his oath -- everyone else in the government aware of the truth that did nothing broke theirs, and the journalists that have helped cover it up or keep the public clueless is no better.

Sounds like Snowden has only told us, the people, what the KGB and Chinese already know. In which case his crime mainly consists of telling the people who pay for all this and have the right to vote for or against it (though, of course, he may not have got it right).

The sad legacy of the Bush and chief side kick Blair era (I'm a Brit and my government is in this too up to their eyeballs) is kidnap, torture, drones killing kids and this mass surveillance. These databases will get misused - to further industrial espionage, to harrass whistleblowers and others speaking too plainly to power and probably by criminals who will hack them or "persuade" the minions to spill the beans. We may save a few lives by moving to the low moral ground and wallowing in this steaming heap - but will the result be the freedom or deomocracy that some of our ancestors purchased at a high price?

Edward is a coward. He took an oath and then betrayed that oath. To make matters worse, he admits he took positions specifically to violate the trust given to him. He was looking to violate his oath.

People break oaths every single day.

It's sad you see this in such black and white terms. Know what? The world isn't a simple place. As he tells it - and we're free to believe it or not - he saw people breaking their own oaths to defend the US Constitution as a matter of course.

In certain cases, you will have to break your oaths to uphold higher values. As your "founding fathers" did when they rebelled against their government. As many Germans did when they secreted Jews out of Germany during WWII. As many whistleblowers do when they denounce injustices that would otherwise go uncorrected.

But it's ok if you find this too hard to understand. Just go about your life with your absolute views and pretend people are either 100% good or 100% evil.

of course Snowden is right ... any organisation of the size of the NSA behaves the same way - anyone being critic - no matter if founded or not - is going to be told to shut up - by the layers of middle management & supervisors.

Edward is a coward. He took an oath and then betrayed that oath. To make matters worse, he admits he took positions specifically to violate the trust given to him. He was looking to violate his oath.

oath or not oath, as already mentioned, it's about the "shadow governments", the cryptic acronymed agencies within a government who believe they stand above the scrutiny of the public, who pays their salaries with their taxes. Those agencies scream "for the common good/against terrorism" and what-not.

Bottomline is - there is no safety in anything. There's ALWAYS a risk in just living! I see it from this angle, if a large percentage of this worlds population is angry enough to do something immoral/harmful, then they believe because they've been wronged. I think we've come to an age where "those in power" are scared to loose their "power" over their constituents. just 20 years ago, it was easy to manipulate peoples perspectives and opinions because there were only limited ways to propagate information. Today in the age of cellphone journalism and the internet's fast and vast capabilities to spread news destroyed this "information control".I feel that there's a hardening of fronts happening, between people who "have power" and those who do not. Those with "no power"are having louder and louder cry outs and those "with power" manipulating and exploiting the law-making and law-executing branches/concepts of a government. I can see that things are escalation to very violent points as it is and has happened already in certain region on our world.I'll stop soapboxing now but I find the nations provicialistic quarreling disgusting - remember, we all sit in the same boat called "Earth" - don't rock it, or we'll go all under. There's no Elysium L5 colony for those "with power", and there's no Federation Of Planets where one can emigrate to.

For me, Snowden is my personal hero right beside George Carlin - unfortunately only the 'educated' and 'technically inclined' (of those who have "no power") realize the scope of his exposures.

No matter what 'oaths' you might take, you always have a greater obligation to justice. Anyone in Snowdon's position had the responsibility to release the information, and all the others are cowards for not doing it. Their cowardice is understandable and justifiable, but cowardice it is.

Indeed, it reminds me of a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum that he isn't being taken out for ice cream after Mom got in a car accident. "But you promised!!!" Circumstances change.

Edward is a coward. He took an oath and then betrayed that oath. To make matters worse, he admits he took positions specifically to violate the trust given to him. He was looking to violate his oath.

The US government is a coward. They have a constitution and betrayed that constitution. To make matters worse, they specifically passed laws predicated on the irrational fears they drummed up in the people they are supposed to protect in order to violate the trust the people placed in them. They are looking to violate the constitution.

No matter what 'oaths' you might take, you always have a greater obligation to justice. Anyone in Snowdon's position had the responsibility to release the information, and all the others are cowards for not doing it. Their cowardice is understandable and justifiable, but cowardice it is.

The "coward" is the one who knows it's wrong and doesn't do anything about it.

What basis do we have for trusting any of these statements? You gave nothing to the Russians? Then why is Russia protecting you? Because of their deep concern for the privacy of Americans? You had to lie to get those files and slip out of the country, every part of your plan required lying. How is anyone supposed to know when you are done lying?

The very system you exposed is the one that led us to Osama Bin Laden and continues to find his buddies. Now that it is exposed you expect us to believe that this will have no impact on national security?

I'm sorry Mr. Snowden but I am going to have to be skeptical here. Someone has to be.

yeah, but this isnt the place for that. For the most part on public comment threads - hero worship of a kid being used to troll the west is in effect. Details and motivations are irrelevant and are all waved away with feel good phrases about freedom and duty to the public. sounds familiar? governments use the same language.

and whatever (unlikely) fallout occurs against the west for these revelations? All will be pinned on the 'greater good' and 'making a better future' - in that respect, snowden and his handlers are using the same playbook of the orgs they work against.

governments and media orgs are always in struggle. Both for power and relevance. most people get stuck in the hyperbole and dont realize there is actually little to see here besides a game between estates.

I don't see how you could infer I implied the US would resort to 'mafia justice'. Just a week ago special forces captured the terrorist mastermind in Libya responsible for Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998. My point is simple, Snowden will be brought to justice, eventually.

The talk about reach and time sounds like something you'd hear in a mafia film. And you can't bring someone to justice if what they did is right unless your definition of justice is similar to that of the mafia.

“So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision,” [Snowden] said. “However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that’s a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of ‘governing in the dark,’ where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.”

What basis do we have for trusting any of these statements? You gave nothing to the Russians? Then why is Russia protecting you? Because of their deep concern for the privacy of Americans? You had to lie to get those files and slip out of the country, every part of your plan required lying. How is anyone supposed to know when you are done lying?

The very system you exposed is the one that led us to Osama Bin Laden and continues to find his buddies. Now that it is exposed you expect us to believe that this will have no impact on national security?

I'm sorry Mr. Snowden but I am going to have to be skeptical here. Someone has to be.

What are you talking about? This surveillance system did not help catch Osama. It was old fashioned detective work and infiltration that found Osama. Do you think he was sending emails and IM'ing people all day? Is this what NSA employees out of work due to the government shutdown do with their free time?

Yes I know the gov is open again, ready to continue their plan to destroy this country.

Edit: I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because as far as I can tell what he has done has only served to help, and he has not lied. Unlike the government that has been consistently lying to us throughout this mess. I assume everything out of their mouths now is a lie.

Edward is a coward. He took an oath and then betrayed that oath. To make matters worse, he admits he took positions specifically to violate the trust given to him. He was looking to violate his oath.

People break oaths every single day.

It's sad you see this in such black and white terms. Know what? The world isn't a simple place. As he tells it - and we're free to believe it or not - he saw people breaking their own oaths to defend the US Constitution as a matter of course.

In certain cases, you will have to break your oaths to uphold higher values. As your "founding fathers" did when they rebelled against their government. As many Germans did when they secreted Jews out of Germany during WWII. As many whistleblowers do when they denounce injustices that would otherwise go uncorrected.

But it's ok if you find this too hard to understand. Just go about your life with your absolute views and pretend people are either 100% good or 100% evil.

Hidden in your well worded response is the very thing you are pointing out. I could be wrong, but I assume that you are anti-NSA. A simplification, obviously, since there may be some NSA things you have no problem with, but in light of the recent revelations, I sense that you implicitly are very against the violations of our constitutional rights. Perhaps it is too black and white for you, too? Perhaps "total information awareness" is actually necessary and will continue to grow in necessity as the next 10 years pass.

My own view is probably more difficult than yours. I actually have no problem with total information awareness. I have a problem with the secret courts and the fact that no one knows. Who knew that "total information awareness" depended on one side being in the dark. That I don't agree with. As far as "search and seizure" and my private effects are concerned, I don't have a big problem if it's an algorithm that's looking electronic information in the case where I understand what it its looking for in spirit (intent to illegally destroy life and property). Of course, then comes up the thorny issue of how the system can/will be abused. I don't have any answers for that. And so my opinion is that until those answers are clear, it probably shouldn't exist.

Seeing things from the other side (because that's important too, if you want to get anywhere other than chest thumping and pacing behind your line looking outward menacingly), I get why "total information awareness" requires one side being in the dark. It's obvious when you assume a combatitive attitude paired with the idea of weaponizing one's infrastructure. You want to CATCH the bad guys, not just prevent them from using your systems against you. They don't want to simply SECURE our networks, they want to make them into TRAPS. And that's what Snowden's blown to shit.

Personally, I'd like to get to the point where information systems do exist that tie together the wealth of information out there (by performing the interesting AI problem of connecting pieces of information into knowledge about a system [namely, the human organism]). But I'd like it to be publicly auditable (by auditable, I don't mean anyone can access anything, but that anyone can mostly see what anyone accesses and certainly when their own info is accessed) and impervious to hacking. Ha. I don't have the answers, either. But what I know is that this sort of thing is coming. It is naive to assume otherwise. It is coming? Ha. It is here. Wake up. Corporations have it and are refining it. Governments have it and are refining it. Criminals either have it or are refining it. And search engines provide it to a certain degree for any everyday Joe and that is being refined too.

We could (and should) build in greater protection for privacy, but that will only go so far. It will put the key pieces of information behind this or that lock and key. The way the game works is that the other side will then zoom out a bit and try to find a different way to get the information that generates value for it. Basically, I think we're looking into a process with a magnifying glass. There may be no end to it. Just a constant give and take of privacy as systems compete to outdo each other.